Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S Taj Trade And Investment Ltd., Mumbai 400 005

High Court 13 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S Taj Trade And Investment Ltd., Mumbai 400 005
Date of order
13 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S Taj Trade And Investment Ltd., Mumbai 400 005, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 2 2.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3,Mumbai v/sM/s Taj Trade and Investment Ltd., Mumbai 400 005 … Appellant … Respondent Mr Arvind Pinto for Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ. DATE : 13[th] JANUARY, 2016 P.C.:- 1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 1986-87. Mr Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the tax effect involved in the present appeal as indicated in para 11 of the Appeal Memo is Rs.1,38,906/-. He further states that in view of the Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No.21/15 dated 10[th] December 2015, the tax effect being less than the threshold limits provided therein for challenging an order of the Tribunal before this Court, he does not press the present appeal. 2 2.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Refund of Court fees as per Rules. (B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan